Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Arun Kumar @ Manee – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the convictions and sentences. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the charges and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. investigation and witness accounts. (Para 5) |
| 4. summary of evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments surrounding evidence and allegations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. impacts of the defective investigation on the case. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. judicial assessment of testimonies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. significance of direct and circumstantial evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. discussion on conspiracy and criminal evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. final decisions on appeals and convictions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2017, vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . In addition to above, appellant-Rajeev Kaushal was also convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , and order dated 07.04.2017, vide which they were sentenced a
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The High Court affirmed that, in chance recovery cases, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, reinforcing the credibility of police testimony despite the absence of independent....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to confront key witnesses undermines the credibility of its narrative.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be treated as evidence in criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose of impeaching credibil....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accus....
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
